Heiko, Ike, Alexey (or others with thoughts): In the operation request format there are a couple of extraneous bits that have crept in that basically tell the server information about how to execute the operation rather than the body of the operation itself. Wanted to get your opinion on an idea that came up today (see JIRA below) to segregate these from the rest of the operation. Basically, instead of the current { "operation"=>"add", "address"=>{"subsystem"=>"foo"}, "paramX"=>"A", "paramY"=>true, "rollback-on-runtime-failure"=>"false", "rollout-plan"=>{.....} } It would be: { "operation"=>"add", "address"=>{"subsystem"=>"foo"}, "paramX"=>"A", "paramY"=>true, "operation-headers"=>{ "rollback-on-runtime-failure"=>"false", "rollout-plan"=>{.....} } } Alexey, I first thought about the CLI just as I was about to send this. This idea would make setting this kind of thing via the CLI harder for users, which is a significant downside. On 3/22/11 10:38 AM, Brian Stansberry (JIRA) wrote: > Create an "operation-header" section in operation requests > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: JBAS-9112 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBAS-9112 > Project: JBoss Application Server > Issue Type: Task > Security Level: Public (Everyone can see) > Components: Domain Management > Reporter: Brian Stansberry > Assignee: Brian Stansberry > Fix For: 7.0.0.Beta2 > > > For the oddball stuff that goes along with some ops: > > "operation-headers"=>{"rollout-plan"=>{..},"rollback-on-runtime-failure"=>false, "ignore-restart-required"=>true,...} > > "operation" and "address" would not move -- too disruptive > > -- > This message is automatically generated by JIRA. > For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

I think, this structural change makes sense. I'd also consider a separate node for the properties since every other child node name is fixed (operation, address) and to avoid collisions between the property names and the fixed name.

Is separating the properties from operation and address a "this seems better" kind of thing, or is it critical in some way? It would be a ton of work since it affects basically every piece of code that either creates or reads an operation. The JBAS-9112 change is much more limited; just a few places deal with those "rollout-plan" and "rollback-on-runtime-failure" properties. On 3/23/11 9:16 AM, Heiko Braun wrote: > +1 > > On Mar 23, 2011, at 3:04 PM, Alexey Loubyansky wrote: > >> I think, this structural change makes sense. I'd also consider a >> separate node for the properties since every other child node name is >> fixed (operation, address) and to avoid collisions between the property >> names and the fixed name. > > _______________________________________________ > jboss-as7-dev mailing list > jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev